An article written by Times magazine attempts to explain why the death penalty (DP) is dying. I will try to discuss why I hope the DP does not die.
Times: "Support for capital punishment has sagged in recent years."
Response: This is true, and it shows that the DP may be on the course of death. But I don't think the trend is irreversible. According to Gallup, the death penalty support fell to a mere 42% in the 1960s, with the amount opposed at 47%. The trend reversed itself with 80% support in 1994 versus 16% opposed. Support has since fallen to 63% in support and 33% in opposition. The majority continues to support the death penalty, despite a steady decline since 1994. Though the plummet in support and rise in opposition in the mid 50s led to a dramatic rise in death penalty support. It should be noted that support increased during periods of high crime. Crime has fallen since the mid 1990s, so it is no surprise that support has fallen. What is ironic--as I will explain later--the DP may be (in part) responsible for the crime decline causing the support to fall. So it seems that DP support may track crime rates and not some political shift Times seems to assume. But they are right; support has fallen since the 1990s.
Times: "Americans have stuck with grim determination to the idea of the ultimate penalty even as other Western democracies have turned against it. On this issue, our peer group is not Britain and France; it’s Iran and China."
Response: Well... Japan, one of our closest allies and also a functioning democracy, has a death penalty. Belarus has a death penalty. Singapore has the death penalty, as does the Bahamas. South Korea has a DP moratorium, but has 60 people on death row and convicted someone to death in 2009, though the last execution was in 1997. There are discussions to bring it back. So merely having a death penalty does not mean we are somehow evil--other democracies have it (or are discussing bringing it back). Japan has 80% death penalty support, but no one is equating them to China or Iran. Even if all "civilized" democracies legalized prostitution, slavery, or murder, it would not make it right to simply do the same. This is another bandwagon fallacy--the first point was, too. Regardless, I pointed to multiple countries (which were not China or Iran) which continue to uphold the DP--or may bring it back.
Times: "The shift is more pragmatic than moral, as Americans realize that our balky system of state-sanctioned killing simply isn’t fixable. ... The reality is that capital punishment is nothing more than an expensive, wasteful and risky government program."
Response: Wrong.
(1) It is fixable. The reason it takes so long is because we allow anti-DP groups like the ACLU, among others, to support murderers participate in a countless number of appeals in order to get life sentences. This causes an immense number of costs. Even the liberal DPIC says that pretrial, trial, and posttrial costs are the reason the DP costs more. There is no reason this should be the case. Liberals always say this: put them in jail forever and throw out the key. So why should a DP case receive more attention than that? It is arbitrary and could easily be reformed. The trials also should cost about the same for LWOP cases since it involves putting a man in jail for life. Forever. But that is exempt for some reason. Liberal logic! And posttrial costs and trial costs are often zero if you take into account plea bargians.
(2) Plea bargians! If you take this into account, the cost of the DP is diminished greatly. Before this is taken into account, the DP costs 2.45 times as much as equivalent LWOP cases. After it is taken into account, the DP only costs 1.5 times as much, according to one study. Simply taking that into account can change the numbers tremendously.
(3) A study by Sherod Thaxton shows that the DP costs much more than LWOP. If you take into account a few things, the results aren't as impressive. Each year in prison costs about $30,000 according to CBS. The average time on death row, according to the DPIC, is 15 years. So the DP incarceration costs are about $450,000. Thaxton says the DP cases cost $2 million more in trials. So assume the LWOP trial costs 0 and the DP case costs 2 million--same ratio but easier numbers. Say a prisoner on LWOP is in jail for 50 years. He costs the state 1.5 million dollars versus 2.45 million for the DP. If you add on the plea bargaining effect, you can take off .4 million from the DP side, making it 1.5:2.05. Using that estimate, the DP only costs 30% more.
(4) The effect is very small on budgets. I wrote the numbers here a while ago. I used them above, too. The DP in a state like Texas, who executes the most people, only takes up 0.024% of the state's budget. You can object that Texas is super rich, so it would take up more of the budget for other states. Virginia, who has executed the second most people but is not as wealthy as Texas, has an even smaller percentage. The DP only takes up 0.005% of the state's budget.
(5) Deterrence. If the death penalty deters only one murder it makes up for budget shortfalls. Each murder costs $17-24 million to the state through trial and societal costs (lost productivity, etc.) according to one study -- the most violent and gruesome cases can cost in excess of $150 million. Another study had the cost of a murder at $1.2 million dollars in tangible costs (e.g. trials) but $8 million in intangible costs (e.g. lost productivity), making the cost of each murder about $9 million. Either way, the DP deterring one murder could save $9 - 150 million dollars--more than any plausible DP case.
This was a response to the arguments they had *before* their list. I may touch on the list a bit tomorrow--but one of them says crime, which is what I hypothesized above. I responded to reason 4 (government's going broke--only takes up a tiny fraction of costs, may cost the same or less in the long run). Their final reason is the Justices, but I doubt that has caused enough awareness to have an impact. And it is a bad reason anyway--will liberals become pro-choice because Roe, who argued in favor of abortion in Roe v Wade, became pro life? Or maybe because Doe, who argued in favor of abortion, in Doe v Bolton became pro life? I am pro life, but it is simply a terrible argument to make. It is an appeal to authority. Plus, the reasons they change may be totally different than why you support it. Say you support gun control because guns are dangerous. If John Lott became pro gun control--despite saying control causes crime--because the Second Amendment somehow bans gun ownership (it doesn't, but go with my weirdness)--would that make you want to support gun control more? No, because it has nothing to do with what you think. And, of course, they could always end up being wrong. If I feel the need I will respond to them point by point tomorrow. But I think I did a good opening statement here.
Times: "Support for capital punishment has sagged in recent years."
Response: This is true, and it shows that the DP may be on the course of death. But I don't think the trend is irreversible. According to Gallup, the death penalty support fell to a mere 42% in the 1960s, with the amount opposed at 47%. The trend reversed itself with 80% support in 1994 versus 16% opposed. Support has since fallen to 63% in support and 33% in opposition. The majority continues to support the death penalty, despite a steady decline since 1994. Though the plummet in support and rise in opposition in the mid 50s led to a dramatic rise in death penalty support. It should be noted that support increased during periods of high crime. Crime has fallen since the mid 1990s, so it is no surprise that support has fallen. What is ironic--as I will explain later--the DP may be (in part) responsible for the crime decline causing the support to fall. So it seems that DP support may track crime rates and not some political shift Times seems to assume. But they are right; support has fallen since the 1990s.
Times: "Americans have stuck with grim determination to the idea of the ultimate penalty even as other Western democracies have turned against it. On this issue, our peer group is not Britain and France; it’s Iran and China."
Response: Well... Japan, one of our closest allies and also a functioning democracy, has a death penalty. Belarus has a death penalty. Singapore has the death penalty, as does the Bahamas. South Korea has a DP moratorium, but has 60 people on death row and convicted someone to death in 2009, though the last execution was in 1997. There are discussions to bring it back. So merely having a death penalty does not mean we are somehow evil--other democracies have it (or are discussing bringing it back). Japan has 80% death penalty support, but no one is equating them to China or Iran. Even if all "civilized" democracies legalized prostitution, slavery, or murder, it would not make it right to simply do the same. This is another bandwagon fallacy--the first point was, too. Regardless, I pointed to multiple countries (which were not China or Iran) which continue to uphold the DP--or may bring it back.
Times: "The shift is more pragmatic than moral, as Americans realize that our balky system of state-sanctioned killing simply isn’t fixable. ... The reality is that capital punishment is nothing more than an expensive, wasteful and risky government program."
Response: Wrong.
(1) It is fixable. The reason it takes so long is because we allow anti-DP groups like the ACLU, among others, to support murderers participate in a countless number of appeals in order to get life sentences. This causes an immense number of costs. Even the liberal DPIC says that pretrial, trial, and posttrial costs are the reason the DP costs more. There is no reason this should be the case. Liberals always say this: put them in jail forever and throw out the key. So why should a DP case receive more attention than that? It is arbitrary and could easily be reformed. The trials also should cost about the same for LWOP cases since it involves putting a man in jail for life. Forever. But that is exempt for some reason. Liberal logic! And posttrial costs and trial costs are often zero if you take into account plea bargians.
(2) Plea bargians! If you take this into account, the cost of the DP is diminished greatly. Before this is taken into account, the DP costs 2.45 times as much as equivalent LWOP cases. After it is taken into account, the DP only costs 1.5 times as much, according to one study. Simply taking that into account can change the numbers tremendously.
(3) A study by Sherod Thaxton shows that the DP costs much more than LWOP. If you take into account a few things, the results aren't as impressive. Each year in prison costs about $30,000 according to CBS. The average time on death row, according to the DPIC, is 15 years. So the DP incarceration costs are about $450,000. Thaxton says the DP cases cost $2 million more in trials. So assume the LWOP trial costs 0 and the DP case costs 2 million--same ratio but easier numbers. Say a prisoner on LWOP is in jail for 50 years. He costs the state 1.5 million dollars versus 2.45 million for the DP. If you add on the plea bargaining effect, you can take off .4 million from the DP side, making it 1.5:2.05. Using that estimate, the DP only costs 30% more.
(4) The effect is very small on budgets. I wrote the numbers here a while ago. I used them above, too. The DP in a state like Texas, who executes the most people, only takes up 0.024% of the state's budget. You can object that Texas is super rich, so it would take up more of the budget for other states. Virginia, who has executed the second most people but is not as wealthy as Texas, has an even smaller percentage. The DP only takes up 0.005% of the state's budget.
(5) Deterrence. If the death penalty deters only one murder it makes up for budget shortfalls. Each murder costs $17-24 million to the state through trial and societal costs (lost productivity, etc.) according to one study -- the most violent and gruesome cases can cost in excess of $150 million. Another study had the cost of a murder at $1.2 million dollars in tangible costs (e.g. trials) but $8 million in intangible costs (e.g. lost productivity), making the cost of each murder about $9 million. Either way, the DP deterring one murder could save $9 - 150 million dollars--more than any plausible DP case.
This was a response to the arguments they had *before* their list. I may touch on the list a bit tomorrow--but one of them says crime, which is what I hypothesized above. I responded to reason 4 (government's going broke--only takes up a tiny fraction of costs, may cost the same or less in the long run). Their final reason is the Justices, but I doubt that has caused enough awareness to have an impact. And it is a bad reason anyway--will liberals become pro-choice because Roe, who argued in favor of abortion in Roe v Wade, became pro life? Or maybe because Doe, who argued in favor of abortion, in Doe v Bolton became pro life? I am pro life, but it is simply a terrible argument to make. It is an appeal to authority. Plus, the reasons they change may be totally different than why you support it. Say you support gun control because guns are dangerous. If John Lott became pro gun control--despite saying control causes crime--because the Second Amendment somehow bans gun ownership (it doesn't, but go with my weirdness)--would that make you want to support gun control more? No, because it has nothing to do with what you think. And, of course, they could always end up being wrong. If I feel the need I will respond to them point by point tomorrow. But I think I did a good opening statement here.
No comments:
Post a Comment